skinny, I think you have a great point. A four or five hour race will be going in and out of orchards, wheat fields, cities etc. Big changes in pollen content, smog and industrial pollutants.

I see both sides of this. My life is far better using Nasonex, a corticosteroid, daily (though not on rides). Without, my sinuses close up, congestion builds and eventually I will get the sore throat and anti-Bs yet again. With, I get to have a life, both on the bike and off. This condition of mine was almost certainly set in place by willing actions of mine (working with fiberglass resins and solvents). Because of this (or if my condition was genetic) should I be banned from using the Nasonex if I were to race again?

I don't care for Froome at all. That use of the inhaler reflects poorly on Froome, on Sky and UCI as a whole. Probably such use should be banned for just that reason. Perhaps the rules should read: inhalers may be used before the start and out of sight of the public, but not during races. Those who need them during would then simply have the same sucky problem that many of have that shows in different ways. Bad genetics. Curse God, suck it up and limit your racing to what your body can do well.

I was given a body uniquely suited for Cat II 3 week stage races. They don't exist. As racing existed in my day, I could shine in (but probably not win) two or three races a year.

I think UCI needs to look at this as an issue of perception. This sport is about making money, garnering positive publicity and reaping benefits for the sponsors. To help achieve this, I would say that a policy of no drugs used before or during races while in the public eye. Cruel to some riders, yes. But that would be simple and uniform. The one exception I could see is drugs (anti-Bs, wound dressings etc.) for sicknesses and injuries incurred during stage races with strict TUEs required.

(I may wake up tomorrow with a very different idea on how this should play out!)

I agree that the issue is SHOULD its use be legal. If inhaling slabuterol "does not affect performance" then why does Froome feel the need to use it before the start of the last climb? Because his breathing might be compromised if he doesnt use it -- preventing him from performing at his best. So, in fact, to Froome salbuterol does affect his performance -- it enhances his perfomance. How is this OK?

His breathing may be compromised because of a medical condition , not because of a lack of talent or ability. I see a big difference between the two. I don't consider a medical condition (or the treatment of it) to be the same as someone topping off their hematocrit to "even the playing field."

As to how it is OK, it si very simple - the rules allow it.

There is no inherent morality in any drug. If EPO were allowed tomorrow, it would be legal and perfectly acceptable to use.

I do, however, agree with OC that its use in race is inappropriate, if for no other reason than the PR / visual aspect. But I would also argue that there is a difference between in race use and pre-race use. Just a gut feeling with no particular logic to back it up.

Cosmic, what makes something a medical condition? Low T is a medical condition, low hematocrit syndrome is a medical condition, E.D. is a medical condition. The definition of medical condition can often be defined as "money to be made". (I'm not discounting how sh*ty breathing problems are for many peoople). What is talent? I would argue that breathing trouble is a lack of talent, much like lack of speed is a lack of talent.

The point I've tried to make is that pro sports should be a test of the best human specimen. If you have to use anything other than eating and drinking (balanced nutrition), you aren't in that category. I realize that's not realistic in our modern pharma world, but in a primal, man vs. man, who is the best battle, if you have breathing problems you die. Yah, I know, the gladiators were loaded on herbs and fermented drinks...

Yup....Low T and low hematocrit are medical conditions.....and there is an approval process in place for those athletes that truly have the conditions. NOt "Oh, my doc said I should slap a patch on my 'nads" but true, verified condition.

I see a massive difference between asthma and one's VO2 max, or their ability to ride at / above lactate threshold, etc. IN the case of EIA, youa re not boosting your performance above your natural capabilities (i.e. your breathing passages are not getting enlarged), you are keeping them operating as they should (i.e. preventing inflamation). That is clearly nowhere near the same thing as someone with a 42 HCT saying "well, I'll just top off my tanks to get to 49." THAT is boosting your natural capabilities above their genetic thresholds.

Maybe a better way of putting it is that one is designed to boost your capabilities above normal while the other is designed to prevent a negative from occurring and keep you at a status quo.

And asthma (even EIA) is not just sh*tty breathing problems....it is potentially life threatening. As noted earlier, I had one attack back in 95 or so that had me on the side of the road, gasping for air, certain that I was going to pass out. Scary schitt.....

The natural capabilities of a person with breathing issues are open sometimes and constricted others. So when they take something to reduce constriction they ARE improving on their natural capabilities.

The argument on both sides is valid. Drugs are a gray area, maybe not in terms of a drug by definition, but what constitutes moral or ethical use of a drug. It's a debate that cannot really be won, so we really have no choice but to rely on governing bodies to determine what is acceptable and what is not. Asthma med's were taken off the list of banned substances, I suspect because so many athletes (not just Pro's) were impacted. If every licensed athlete under a USADA sport were to submit a TUE for an inhaler it would overload the manpower available to process the TUE's. Is that the the right reason to allow for their use? I don't think so, but I certainly understand the rationale behind it.

Personally, I think any medication that requires a prescription should require a TUE. But that's just my thought.

As it relates to EIA, there are varying degrees of inflammatory responses that mimic true EIA. I have what I thought was EIA, but in fact was diagnosed at "Vocal Cord Disorder". Same response, just to my vocal cords primarily. They swell up and get "gooey" as an allergic response, and in addition to being absurdly painful, it constricts the airway so I cannot breathe. The first time it happened, I thought I was going to die. For obvious reasons, you can't talk and you can't breathe. When I was finally diagnosed with this (often misdiagnosed as EIA) I was told that the good news is that if I were to lose consciousness, the vocal cords automatically relax and allow air in. The bad news is that nobody would know that, if I am laying there unconscious. A lot of unnecessary tracheotomies have happened for this very reason!